OK cool - I'm not going to do any more here today but if you do more I'll
pick it up in the morning.
Simon
Simon Laws wrote:
Sebastien, it looks like a good start on the lazy loading to me.
On the disitributed runtime scenario point. I'd like to start putting the
distributed runtime bits I have so far into head so I would like to work
with you in making a start on the notion of a domain/runtime confi
Sebastien, it looks like a good start on the lazy loading to me.
On the disitributed runtime scenario point. I'd like to start putting the
distributed runtime bits I have so far into head so I would like to work
with you in making a start on the notion of a domain/runtime configured
through incre
[snip]
Mike Edwards wrote:
Another part of the thinking here is that in a distributed runtime,
different parts of the Domain configuration will be targeted at
different runtime nodes. There is a question about how it is decided
that a given part of the domain ends up on a given node.
Mik
Jean-Sebastien,
Comments inline...
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
Mike,
Good timing, as I am actually starting to work on some lazy +
incremental loading and resolution of SCA assemblies. I had the
following in mind:
step 1:
- change the CompositeProcessor to not resolve its references to o
Mike Edwards wrote:
Folks,
I made an observation while debugging my composite loading code in the
Spring implementation that gave me pause for thought - and I'd like to
see if the code that handles contributions is behaving the way people
expect.
I found that in my test case, I am pointing
